The Green Nuke - LFTR - Page 4

On January 27 2012 19:10 Fiend13 wrote:
Thanks for this really nice thread. If only all of them could be like that.

On January 25 2012 10:27 Perdac Curall wrote:
4) LFTRs do not produce the "spent fuel" problem of ordinary solid fuel reactors like PWRs. Because the fuel is a liquid it can be fully burnt up in the reactor, so storage of spent fuel is not necessary.

Furthermore the projected transuranic waste of a 40MW "mini" reactor produced over ten years is anticipated to be only a few millionths of a gram. This is teeny tiny amounts of pollution.

9) unlike LMFBRs it does not use fast neutrons, it uses thermal neutrons, which makes fission much easier to achieve

On January 26 2012 03:06 Perdac Curall wrote:
The amount of energy in matter-antimatter reactions is 1000 times as energy dense as fusion, so it is not implausible that we can achieve a net energy gain there in the future

On January 28 2012 10:18 gyth wrote:

Something seems fishy with the neutron economy here. Normal nuclear fuel has to be replaced because some fission products are neutron absorbers and when more neutrons are absorbed than produced you lose criticality. Thorium is already a neutron down versus U-235. It has to undergo a neutron capture then decay to U-233 before it is fissile. (similar to the U-238 -> Pu-239 path)


That seem a very odd way to say that the reactor won't make any plutonium. There are still plenty of nasty products below 92.


It needs thermal neutrons because thermal neutrons make fission easier to achieve, not because thermal neutrons are easier to produce. Fission produces fast neutrons, which turn into thermal neutrons as they slow down through collisions with a moderator.

On January 28 2012 16:08 v3chr0 wrote:
I will leave this thread with a wealth of knowledge on the subject, great post, and great replys OP, really informative and has changed my opinion of Nuclear power in general, I would love to see energy technology adopt LFTR - it seems much more stable, abundant, efficient and cleaner.

On January 26 2012 03:06 Perdac Curall wrote:


There was a meeting back in 2004 on this very subject detailing the need for a dedicated antiproton facility in the US, but it was ignored by the Bush administration. The amount of energy in matter-antimatter reactions is 1000 times as energy dense as fusion, so it is not implausible that we can achieve a net energy gain there in the future (50-75 years from now when commercial fusion reactors are (hopefully) a reality.)

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0410/0410511v1.pdf

On January 28 2012 17:17 ChriS-X wrote:
where does the flouride salt come from?

On January 28 2012 17:22 QuAnTuM314 wrote:


Yes, the 1000 times as energy dense is what lends it to being such an attractive idea for space travel as it saves so much weight. But it does not suggest that we could achieve a net energy gain.
Fact is, because we do not have an antimatter mine anywhere we would have to make it ourselves. And due to the nature of matter-antimatter annihilation the best case scenario is that we get the same amount of energy out as we put in to make it, which isn't such an attractive property for a fuel.

On January 28 2012 20:00 white_horse wrote:
Cool read, thanks.

It does look like another too good to be true story but if it is really a viable method for nuclear energy, why the hell isn't the US government actively pursing the technology? Because mastering this would basically solve our entire energy problem. That the US government would pass this over and let china go after it alone would mean that we really have total dumbasses heading this country.